Judging Mizzou as not being a good SEC fit based on one season of fb is an extremely short and unsubstantive measure. Rebuilding years happen for most---unless one's an Urban Myer-type coming in and win immediately off the recruiting efforts of the predecessor and leave a few years later when the seniors graduate and disarray settles in.

No one is saying Mizzou is a bad school or that the SEC eff'd up by taking them. They bring good academics and markets which the SEC needed badly but if you read the hyperbole we bolded a few posts up even a non-realignment junkie would agree with us. There is a reason Mizzou was worried about being left behind in the land of super conferences while schools like Texas, Oklahoma, UNC aren't.

To says Mizzou was a bad pickup for the SEC (which nobody said) is wrong, but to say Mizzou was the BEST school possible for the SEC to add (which people WERE saying above) is also wrong.

I'll go down with the ship saying there was no better program out there for ANY conference to make than Missouri because of their competitiveness in both revenue sports.

Really?!?!? REALLY?!?!?!? Mizzou is a good school/program but nowhere near the top of the conference realignment pecking order.

Agreed. Missouri was only brought into the SEC because there was internal pressure to NOT bring in schools from existing states. Does anyone really think that Missouri is a better option than Florida St. would have been for the SEC?

Missouri wanted to join the Big Ten. They were public about that. The Big Ten passed on Missouri since they feel they already have enough coverage in St. Louis via the Illinois alum living there. When the Big Ten looked to expand to 14, they didn't reach out to Missouri...they went after Maryland and Rutgers, a move to keep Penn St. happy...not calling Missouri to see if they were interested.

Cutter certainly can defend his own posts, but I think he may be implying about those who recently moved to another conference. I can see an argument whereby Mizzou may have more value for the SEC than the Colorado move to the PAC12 and even Nebraska to the B1G. Maryland/Rutgers may prove to be an excellent move for the B1G, but I would say Mizzou's move may look to have more tangible benefits on immediate examination. Where I would differ on Cutter's point, is that for the SEC, taking Texas A&M was the outstanding addition, on goal alone. For another conference, the assessment could differ.

FSU didn't make a transition. Nor did Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Clemson, etc., to date; and defined as to WHERE. The value of an acquisition has to be impacted by what conference receives the transition. Certainly I would rank Mizzou to the SEC as a better acquisition than those that have ventured to the ACC, including ND w/o full fb.

Indeed, Mizzou had sought the B1G and got shot-down. How the B1G may have assessed the value of Mizzou for their needs, would not be identical to how the SEC viewed Mizzou fitting their needs. It's all circumstantial. That's not to say all the decisions were the brightest.

One big reason the SEC schools may not have pursued FSU recently, are the recruiting wars. Mizzou and Texas A&M open new turf. Such can be flawed reasoning, but no conference school wants to give a newcomer perceived advantages at their own expense.

Cutter certainly can defend his own posts, but I think he may be implying about those who recently moved to another conference. I can see an argument whereby Mizzou may have more value for the SEC than the Colorado move to the PAC12 and even Nebraska to the B1G. Maryland/Rutgers may prove to be an excellent move for the B1G, but I would say Mizzou's move may look to have more tangible benefits on immediate examination. Where I would differ on Cutter's point, is that for the SEC, taking Texas A&M was an outstanding addition. For another conference, the assessment could differ.

FSU didn't make a transition. Nor did Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Clemson, etc., to date. Certainly I would rank Mizzou to the SEC as a better acquisition than those that have ventured to the ACC, including ND w/o full fb.

Indeed, Mizzou had sought the B1G and got shot-down. How the B1G may have assessed the value of Mizzou for their needs, would not be identical to how the SEC viewed Mizzou fitting their needs. It's all circumstantial. That's not to say all the decisions were brightest.

One big reason the SEC schools may not have pursued FSU recently, are the recruiting wars. Mizzou and Texas A&M open new turf. Such can be flawed reasoning, but no conference school wants to give a newcomer perceived advantages at their own expense.

And that may be a good arguement...which conference added the best schools to improve thier membership.

PAC12 - Colorado and Utah - two large markets but overall less competitive and unimpressive but did get a CCG, the West really doesn't have much more to add so any addition other than Texas/OU will probably be lackluster.

Solid arguement to be had on which gained more B1G/SEC/ACC. But as far as best single additions A&M is clearly #1 Nebraska is 2nd, and 3rd could be Mizzou but really that's where I think a lot of people would put almost every school up there depending on conference/regional biases.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

PAC CU, Utah good fitACC Pitt, 'Cuse good fit, should then have added UConn & RutgersBig Ten expansion Nebraska - good fit to get to 14, would have preferred Notre Dame, MizzouSEC to get to 14, would have preferred WVU, LouisvilleBig XII TCU - good fit, would have preferred TA&M stayed

I think thereis a big misperception about Florida's position on FSU to the SEC. Florida is all for FSU joining. Mike Slive is against it because of duplication of markets. For Slive, it is nothing personally against FSU, just business. I think Slive is wrong because I think blocking other conferences access to the state of Florida's recruits is good for SEC business.

I do not know how South Carolina feels about Clemson but like I mentioned, I know Slive's position.

From the Chicago Tribune...."By then the Big Ten will have at least 14 schools, assuming Rutgers can trim the Big East's 27-month notification for departure. Some sources within the Big Ten believe the conference won't stop expanding until it hits 18."

Does the SEC just sit back and let the B1G take those schools? Would the SEC be satisfied taking NC State and Virginia Tech or would the SEC be interested in grabbing Virginia, UNC, Duke and FSU to stop a B1G invasion? I know the SEC prefers 16 but does the B1G force them to go to 18?

If the SEC took those 4, who in the south could the B1G expand with? Georgia Tech would be the only AAU school left in the south.

From the Chicago Tribune...."By then the Big Ten will have at least 14 schools, assuming Rutgers can trim the Big East's 27-month notification for departure. Some sources within the Big Ten believe the conference won't stop expanding until it hits 18."

Does the SEC just sit back and let the B1G take those schools? Would the SEC be satisfied taking NC State and Virginia Tech or would the SEC be interested in grabbing Virginia, UNC, Duke and FSU to stop a B1G invasion?If the SEC took those 4, who in the south could the B1G expand with? Georgia Tech would be the only AAU school left in the south.

Certainly interesting. With the Maryland and Rutgers additions, a larger move south seems inevitable. I think adding a core of Virginia, Georgia Tech and UNC would be great. As for the #4, there are ample options.

Florida St. would be the big football get. Miami is also an option. We forget that it wasn't long ago that they were a power. There's always the goal of Notre Dame, faced with an option of rejoining the nBE or C7 conference if the ACC faced a mass exodus, rethinking the Big Ten. The GOR make it tough for a Big 12 school to join. Vanderbilt could be a real option for #4...in a state that borders North CarolinaAnd as you mentioned, there is Duke. Their football is not a big sell, but they are a big brand, a great school, and one that could help with the BTN.

From the Chicago Tribune...."By then the Big Ten will have at least 14 schools, assuming Rutgers can trim the Big East's 27-month notification for departure. Some sources within the Big Ten believe the conference won't stop expanding until it hits 18."

Does the SEC just sit back and let the B1G take those schools? Would the SEC be satisfied taking NC State and Virginia Tech or would the SEC be interested in grabbing Virginia, UNC, Duke and FSU to stop a B1G invasion?If the SEC took those 4, who in the south could the B1G expand with? Georgia Tech would be the only AAU school left in the south.

Certainly interesting. With the Maryland and Rutgers additions, a larger move south seems inevitable. I think adding a core of Virginia, Georgia Tech and UNC would be great. As for the #4, there are ample options.

Florida St. would be the big football get. Miami is also an option. We forget that it wasn't long ago that they were a power. There's always the goal of Notre Dame, faced with an option of rejoining the nBE or C7 conference if the ACC faced a mass exodus, rethinking the Big Ten. The GOR make it tough for a Big 12 school to join. Vanderbilt could be a real option for #4...in a state that borders North CarolinaAnd as you mentioned, there is Duke. Their football is not a big sell, but they are a big brand, a great school, and one that could help with the BTN.

This is bad news for the ACC. They need to make some back room deals along the lines of we'll waive/won't fight for exit fees (150-200 million) if the Big 10 and Pac 12 can guarantee a loss of 6 schools from the Big 12. Maybe get the SEC in on it too.

From the Chicago Tribune...."By then the Big Ten will have at least 14 schools, assuming Rutgers can trim the Big East's 27-month notification for departure. Some sources within the Big Ten believe the conference won't stop expanding until it hits 18."

Congratulations to Northwestern for the stride. LOL, they shouldn't get too carried away by winning the Gator Bowl and besting Mississippi State, a team that lost 5 or their last 6 games after a 7-0 start. Sounds like Northwestern is making plans for more great use of its lakefront property.

While, the Chicago Tribune is a very credible source, one wonders who these sources are that believe the B1G is going to 18. Northwestern may also want some elite private school company. Whatever it does, it fuels the rumors.

Maybe the talk is really about the ACC and what happens with Maryland's ability to find an early departure and perhaps reduced exit fees. Also, if the B1G was indeed looking for more from the ACC, getting the right two to break may require taking 4.

I suppose the B1G could be trying all sorts of things, including a new expansion war in the south whereby they may not get all they want, to reel in Notre Dame. Why not try for UCLA whereby everyone can get to play in the Rose Bowl site once every dozen or so years with rotation?

From the Chicago Tribune...."By then the Big Ten will have at least 14 schools, assuming Rutgers can trim the Big East's 27-month notification for departure. Some sources within the Big Ten believe the conference won't stop expanding until it hits 18."

While, the Chicago Tribune is a very credible source, one wonders who these sources are that believe the B1G is going to 18. Northwestern may also want some elite private school company. Whatever it does, it fuels the rumors.

Maybe the talk is really about the ACC and what happens with Maryland's ability to find an early departure and perhaps reduced exit fees. Also, if the B1G was indeed looking for more from the ACC, getting the right two to break may require taking 4.

I suppose the B1G could be trying all sorts of things, including a new expansion war in the south whereby they may not get all they want, to reel in Notre Dame. Why not try for UCLA whereby everyone can get to play in the Rose Bowl site once every dozen or so years with rotation?

The B1G will never raid the PAC12 they will eventually merge with them like they tried to do recently but I assume they'd have to expand some more to catch up...I see the B1G/PAC12 taking the best of the ACC/B12 and then eventually raiding or merging with the SEC to end up with the uber conference that eventually breaks away from the NCAA.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

From the Chicago Tribune...."By then the Big Ten will have at least 14 schools, assuming Rutgers can trim the Big East's 27-month notification for departure. Some sources within the Big Ten believe the conference won't stop expanding until it hits 18."

While, the Chicago Tribune is a very credible source, one wonders who these sources are that believe the B1G is going to 18. Northwestern may also want some elite private school company. Whatever it does, it fuels the rumors.

Maybe the talk is really about the ACC and what happens with Maryland's ability to find an early departure and perhaps reduced exit fees. Also, if the B1G was indeed looking for more from the ACC, getting the right two to break may require taking 4.

I suppose the B1G could be trying all sorts of things, including a new expansion war in the south whereby they may not get all they want, to reel in Notre Dame. Why not try for UCLA whereby everyone can get to play in the Rose Bowl site once every dozen or so years with rotation?

The B1G will never raid the PAC12 they will eventually merge with them like they tried to do recently but I assume they'd have to expand some more to catch up...I see the B1G/PAC12 taking the best of the ACC/B12 and then eventually raiding or merging with the SEC to end up with the uber conference that eventually breaks away from the NCAA.

tkalmus, I was joking about UCLA. The implication being when and where does the moment of expansion satisfaction get reached.

but I think he may be implying about those who recently moved to another conference. I can see an argument whereby Mizzou may have more value for the SEC than the Colorado move to the PAC12 and even Nebraska to the B1G. Maryland/Rutgers may prove to be an excellent move for the B1G, but I would say Mizzou's move may look to have more tangible benefits on immediate examination. Where I would differ on Cutter's point, is that for the SEC, taking Texas A&M was the outstanding addition, on goal alone. For another conference, the assessment could differ.

FSU didn't make a transition. Nor did Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Clemson, etc., to date; and defined as to WHERE.

Yes, thank you. It's the immediate impact both revenue sports added to the conference. A competitive triple-threat program (fb,bb, and market) are not common finds in this quest, and that Missouri nearly added to the SEC's bowl payout (they certainly will next season with that schedule), will add by their basketball tournament appearances, and the encroachment into the midwest is an instant payoff. It doesn't matter if they aren't winning titles...are they getting into post-season play regularly in football and basketball, thus generating more revenue for the conference, and do they bring a new market?

Judging Mizzou as not being a good SEC fit based on one season of fb is an extremely short and unsubstantive measure. Rebuilding years happen for most---unless one's an Urban Myer-type coming in and win immediately off the recruiting efforts of the predecessor and leave a few years later when the seniors graduate and disarray settles in.

OK how about we judge them over a longer period: Mizzou has had a solid run over the last 10 years (2003-2012) winning 63% of their games which puts them 29th among FBS schools. They won 12 games in 2007 and 10 in both 2008 & 2010. Going back a bit more....

1993-2002: 40%/81st, 1983-1992: 32%/91st, and over those last 30 yrs as a total they won 46% which put them 76th overall. That puts them behind powerhouse programs like Virginia 58%/36th, Georgia Tech 56%/40th, and Maryland 48%/71st. Other than 07, 08 and 10 Mizzou has had 3 other years in school history with 9 or more wins. 1960 - 10 wins, 1969 - 9 wins and 1899 9 wins. Understand, I do agree that they are a great school with solid athletics and would be a good add. Just not seeing their greatness in football the way you do.

Judging Mizzou as not being a good SEC fit based on one season of fb is an extremely short and unsubstantive measure. Rebuilding years happen for most---unless one's an Urban Myer-type coming in and win immediately off the recruiting efforts of the predecessor and leave a few years later when the seniors graduate and disarray settles in.

OK how about we judge them over a longer period: Mizzou has had a solid run over the last 10 years (2003-2012) winning 63% of their games which puts them 29th among FBS schools. They won 12 games in 2007 and 10 in both 2008 & 2010. Going back a bit more....

1993-2002: 40%/81st, 1983-1992: 32%/91st, and over those last 30 yrs as a total they won 46% which put them 76th overall. That puts them behind powerhouse programs like Virginia 58%/36th, Georgia Tech 56%/40th, and Maryland 48%/71st. Other than 07, 08 and 10 Mizzou has had 3 other years in school history with 9 or more wins. 1960 - 10 wins, 1969 - 9 wins and 1899 9 wins. Understand, I do agree that they are a great school with solid athletics and would be a good add. Just not seeing their greatness in football the way you do.

T&N. The quote was a reference per judging a school's future fb success in a new conference based solely on the initial year. Your remark of "Just not seeing their greatness in football the way you do" is an assumption and/or projection on your part--was not the argument (I) specifically presented. If Mizzou is satisfied with the SEC, and the SEC is satisfied with Mizzou, that is what matters per the SEC---and a futuristic pattern is yet to come. The base of the discussion generated from posters suggesting that Mizzou would now be on the B1G target list and they are itching to go there.

You stated initially, "how we judge them over a longer period". That is not germane to the point, since Mizzou has only had ONE season of SEC fb participation and just finished one game of conference bb last night. As you may imply (not sure), past fb success could be a predictor for future success is a plausible consideration. But it is not a definitive measure, nor is it the sole element in determining worth.

Also, taking your own selected figures, Mizzou was an a B8/B12 member. Comparing that to winning percentages of everyone in other conferences has a red herring dimension to it. Determining "value" for a conference, certainly reaches beyond one season of a fb W/L record.

And, circumstances do change. One can take Oregon, Stanford, TCU, Kansas State, South Carolina, Oklahoma State, etc., and declare how dismal their certain pasts have been. The better question, do such now have the financial and facility resources, recruiting elements, personnel, fan support, and commitments to appropriately sustain themselves in the conference of their participation? And such reaches beyond just fb.

Also, taking your own selected figures, Mizzou was an a B8/B12 member. Comparing that to winning percentages of everyone in other conferences has a red herring dimension to it. Determining "value" for a conference, certainly reaches beyond one season of a fb W/L record.

Yeah, I think the metrics and merit is a lot more ambiguous than just the decade-by-decade analysis, though it isn't to dismiss that entirely. For example, Missouri was perpetually in an arms race with the likes of Nebraska 20-30 years ago, and Nebraska was able to enjoy a pipeline to both Texas and the midwest without actually having to compete with some of those schools directly. Once the Texas schools crashed the party, both went in different directions.

I actually wonder what's going to happen to Nebraska the longer they go in football without a conference championship or that AAU designation. We may look now and see the value of Nebraska being a significant one...what happens ten, twenty, or thirty years from now if this past season is the best we ever see from them again?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum